Lew, I think most of your criticism of the left and of environmentalists is apt, but “libertarians” have only to look in the mirror to see someone to blame for the lack of productive discourse on environmental and regulatory issues, and the reason why libertarians are being marginalized in the confused debate over the legitimate role of the state.

– refuse to follow-up on their own analyses to dig more deeply to see that the roots of the disastrous cycle of regulation (and snowballing fights over the wheel of government) lie in the grant of limited liability to corporate investors, and the resulting externalization of risk and undermining of common law property protections:http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=limited+liability

I too have enjoyed another delightful article from Dr. Reisman; bravo!

But Dr. Reisman`s style does seem to present problems of
interpretation for some readers, whom do not seem to understand that
while Dr. Reisman appears to simply be bashing environmentalists or
environmentalism generally (by focussing on the most absurd arguments
that some of them offer), he is in fact challenging his readers to do
precisely what he has studiously avoided.

That is, far from simply pulling the wings off of flies as he might
seem to some, Dr. Reisman is actually suggesting that serious students
of economics and libertarian approaches to society should diligently:

– seek to engage others productively and with sympathy, in a manner
carefully designed to improve the functioning of markets and ancillary
institutions that enhance plan formation across society;

– note that there are many important, valuable open-access/unowed
resources and government-owned resources – in which property rights and
pricing mechanisms are working poorly at best;

– acknowledge that while proposed “solutions” offered by
environmentalists may be misguided, enviros have legitimate preferences
as to how such resources should be protected, managed and distributed;
and

– recognize that the concerns of enviros frequently arise in
response to government interventions have clearly benefitted powerful
insiders, including wealthy investors and large enterprises, while
shifting costs and risks more broadly.

As a result, Dr. Reisman`s tongue-in-cheek posts are in fact searing
indictments of the status quo and tbe fat cats who are using government
to stifle open competition, consumer choice and innovation, while
frequently generating large external costs. Unlike some who spoil the
fun by engaging in the pedestrian task of spelling out the problems
with the status quo that enviros are right to be dissatisfied with, Dr.
Reisman treats his readers as adults by bracingly challenging them to
use their thinking caps and to clear their own heads.

“Just who is in charge of getting electricity to residents? A
public utility, which, in the absurd American lexicon, means
“state-run” and “state-managed,” perhaps with a veneer of private
trappings. If you look at the electrical grid on a map, it is organized
by region. If you look at the jurisdiction of management, it is
organized by political boundaries.

“In other ways, the provision of power is organized precisely as
a central planner of the old school might plan something: not according
to economics but according to some textbook idea of how to be
“organized.” It is “organized” the same way the Soviets organized grain
production or the New Deal organized bridge building.

“All of centralization and cartelization began nearly a century
ago, as Robert Bradley points out in Energy: The Master Resource, when
industry leaders obtained what was known as a regulatory covenant. They
received franchise protection from market competition in exchange for
which they agreed to price controls based on a cost-plus formula — a
formula that survives to this day.

“Then the economists got involved ex post and declared that
electrical power is a “public good,” under the belief that private
enterprise is not up to the job of providing the essentials of life.

“What industry leaders received from this pact with the devil was
a certain level of cartel-like protection, the same type that the
English crown granted tea or the US government grants first-class
postal mail. It is a government privilege that subjects them to
regulation and immunizes companies from business failure. It’s great
for a handful of producers, but not so great for everyone else.

“There are many costs. Customers are not in charge. They are
courted only for political reasons but they are not the first concern
of the production process. Entrepreneurial development is hindered. Our
current system of electrical provision is stuck in time. Meanwhile,
sectors that provide DSL and other forms of internet and
telecommunication services are expanded and advancing day by day — not
with perfect results but at least with the desire to serve consumers.
…

“How New York and California consumers would adore a setting in
which power companies were begging for their business and encouraging
them to turn down their thermostats to the coldest point. Competition
would lead to price reductions, innovation, and an ever greater variety
of services — the same as we find in the computer industry.

“What we are learning in our times is that no essential sector of
life can be entrusted to the state. Energy is far too important to the
very core of life to be administered by a bureaucracy that lacks the
economic means to provide for the public. How it should be organized we
can’t say in advance: it should be left to the markets. Whatever the
result, you can bet the grid would not look like it does today, nor
would its management be dependent on the whims of political
jurisdiction.

“What we need today is full, radical, complete, uncompromised
deregulation and privatization. We need competition. That doesn’t mean
that we need two or more companies serving every market (though that
was common up through the 1960s). What we need is the absence of legal
barriers to enter the market.“

Thanks, again, Dr. Reisman, for challenging us, and not pandering to the dullest and laziest among us, the way Lew Rockwell does!

For those who think that Dr. Reisman is being serious in his one-sided attack on enviros while ignoring the problems of ongoing rent-seeking by entrenched statist corporations, I would be pleased to refer to other posts in which he is clearly posting tongue-in-cheek and intends no rancor or imbalance. A good example would be his light-hearted post in March 2007, Global Warming: Environmentalism’s Threat of Hell on Earth, in which Dr. Reisman appeared to seriously argue that

“there is a case for considering
the possible detonation, on uninhabited land north of 70° latitude,
say, of a limited number of hydrogen bombs. … This is certainly
something that should be seriously considered by everyone who is
concerned with global warming and who also desires to preserve modern
industrial civilization and retain and increase its amenities. If
there really is any possibility of global warming so great as to cause
major disturbances, this kind of solution should be studied and
perfected. Atomic testing should be resumed for the purpose of empirically testing its feasibility.“

While apparently serious, how could this possibly be a libertarian, nonstatist proposal? The answer clearly MUST be – since Dr. Reisman is a lover of freedom and markets, and not of big government, goverment-run mega projects or statist corporate rent-seeking – that Dr. Reisman was NOT being serious. Instead, in his usual playful manner, he was simply inviting his readers to see through his words, and to productively engage those who are concerned with climate or other commons issues, on the basis of a cool consideration of libertarian and market principles.